Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Intentional camera movement

Intentional camera movement
Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015  at 23:36:59 (UTC)
 * Reason:Probably a controversial nom (it certainly has been at Commons) but I think it's too good to pass up. The image shows intentional camera movement, which, as the name suggests, is when a photographer deliberately moves a camera while taking a picture to have a specific effect. In this case, the photographer (Colin) moved the camera along the vertical plane to achieve an impressionist effect. He discusses the image here.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Intentional camera movement
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
 * Creator:Colin


 * Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A very good example of ICM and thus good EV in illustrating this technique. Very eye-catching as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I had hoped that, on Commons, the image would be appreciated as more than just an example of ICM. Didn't manage to convince 2/3 but plenty votes in support. On WP, I hope the case is easier since a bluebell wood is a common subject for ICM. In fact it is a bit of a cliché, like photographing an old derelict harbour using a 10-stop ND filter to smooth the waves to milky softness. -- Colin°Talk 07:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support --PetarM (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support But I would have preferred a horizontal movement on a road runner or sombrero-wearing mouse. Belle (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Even stronger support here than on Commons given its usefulness in illustrating ICM. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support-Jobas (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – This photo would be more informative as a set combined with the same scene without camera movement for comparison. – Editør (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm... why? I can't imagine that someone would look at the image and say "Oh, look at how still those flowers are." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a link on the image description page, to a conventional photograph of scene. However, I agree that for discussion of the artistic effect, one doesn't need the standard version in the same way as someone doesn't ask for a colour version of a black and white photo or a classically painted scene vs an impressionist painting. -- Colin°Talk 17:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- DreamSparrow     talk   18:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's kind of funny that this is cruising along with unanimous support here on en FP, which is traditionally known for frowning upon "artsy" photos, when it didn't pass at Commons. And what's even more ironic is that its very artsy-ness is what gives it its EV. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't that surprising to me though. It's cruising because it's encyclopaedic. The Commons crowd, I think, didn't see the usefulness of it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support --- High-artistic and much-encyclopedic. Alborzagros (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support has encyclopaedic value. --Laitche (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 23:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)